Obama, Keyes clash on terrorism

Against a backdrop of another deadly terrorist attack in the Middle East, the two major candidates running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois both said they would be willing to back military action against Arab nations under certain conditions, but Republican Alan Keyes took the more hawkish stance.

Democrat Barack Obama believes the best way to fight terrorism long term is to devote more assistance to Middle Eastern nations and push for reforms in countries that are breeding grounds for terrorists. Keyes has said in the past that such proposals may not truly get at the roots of terrorism in the Middle East.

The difference of opinion is just one of many between the two men seeking to replace Republican U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, who is retiring. With the Senate closely divided along party lines, the winner may play an important role in shaping the nation's foreign policy.

The opinions of the candidates were taken from responses to a Tribune questionnaire and from comments made in public and in interviews.

Obama said it is important for the U.S. to keep its eye on the big picture and attempt to stop terrorism at its source by working for political and economic reforms in despotic nations rather than solely employing military might.

"We can address the circumstances of powerlessness and despair that foment terrorism, thus helping eliminate it at its source," Obama said in his questionnaire. "We have a responsibility, and an obligation, to assist the overwhelming majority of peaceful and moderate Muslims around the world to isolate radical ideologues that have perverted the Islamic faith."

But Keyes has long objected to the theory that more assistance from the U.S. will quell terrorism in Middle Eastern nations.

Saying the U.S. has been generous in its aid around the world since World War II, Keyes said a few years ago on a cable TV talk show he hosted that nations supporting terrorism "aren't the poor countries and the downtrodden countries."

"These are folks who have consciously chosen to waste their wealth, not building up their people but building up weapons . . . and networks that are aimed at destroying us and destroying others," Keyes said in 2002. "That's a choice they made."

In this campaign Keyes has been a strong supporter of Israel and has argued that the U.S. relationship with its closest ally in the Middle East is essential to fighting terrorism.

He said that in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. government should act to encourage the resumption of discussions aimed at producing peace agreements only after U.S. leaders feel confident Palestinians and others in the region have turned away from promoting terrorism.

"In the interim, we should support and encourage action that reduces opportunities for terrorist attacks and violence," including Israel's controversial security wall along its border, Keyes said in his questionnaire.

Keyes and Obama agree that although the conflict between Israel and Palestine plays a role in the turmoil in the Middle East, it is not the only reason why there are problems there.

"Both the Israelis and Palestinian people strongly desire true peace," Obama said in his questionnaire. Obama quickly added that the onus of peace in the region is on the Palestinian leadership, which he said must cease violence against Israelis and work "to end the incitement against Israel in the Arab world."

But Obama thinks the most critical foreign-policy issue facing the U.S. is in Iran, which continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, according to a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

To respond, Obama said the world community should impose tougher sanctions against Iran--and if those don't work, military action might be necessary.

"The global community cannot tolerate nuclear technology in the hands of a radical theocracy," Obama said.

During a recent meeting with the Tribune editorial board, he was even more forceful.

"My instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran," he said. "I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

Keyes said the U.S. government should make use of existing international arrangements to orchestrate pressure against Iranian development of nuclear weapons. But in his questionnaire he added, "If and when reliable intelligence indicates the development of an imminent and probable threat to U.S. targets, appropriately tailored direct action should be taken."

Keyes also said it is necessary for the U.S. to include working with people in Iran who want to change the government there in a direction that respects human rights and backs away from the support of terror.

Behind much of the debate over the Middle East is the fact that the U.S. is reliant on the region for oil.

Both Obama and Keyes have expressed support for examining alternative energy sources, and they agree in supporting farm subsidies to explore ethanol. But they disagree over whether to tap into the nation's oil reserves.

Obama has said he opposes using the reserves as a way to simply lower gasoline prices because the reserves were put into place for emergencies. Keyes disagrees.

"A lot of exaggerated arguments have been made about the dangers of this," Keyes said in 2002 on his cable TV show. "In truth, [tapping the reserves] turns out to be both safe for the environment, safer for the folks on our highways and safer in terms of reducing our dependency on foreign oil for security."